http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/science/earth/06yucca.html
President Obama recently closed the Yucca Mountain waste site that fulfills a campaign promise and wins the presidential political points in Nevada. However, it also raises new questions about what to do with readioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants.
"The decision could cost the federal government additional billions in payments to the utility industry, and if it holds up, it would mean that most of the $10.4 billion spent since 1983 to find a place to put nuclear waste was wasted. A final decision to abandon the respository would leave the nation with NO solution to a problem it has struggled with for half a century. Lawyers are predicting tens of billions of dollars in damage suits from utilities that must pay to store their wastes instead of having the government bury them, with the figure rising by about half-billion dollars for each year of additional delay. The courts have already awarded the companies about $1 billion, because the government signed contracts obligating it to begin taking the waste in 1998, but seems unlikely to do so for many years. The nuclear industry says it may demand the return of the $22 billion that it has already paid to the Energy Department to establish a repository, but that the government has not yet spent"
Basically concerns have emerged, including the realization that water flows through Yucca Mountain a lot faster than initially believed which may pollute the water table over time. However, the scientific merit of this site has not been established by independent judges. As it stands now, however, the waste is accumulating, as it has for decades, in steel-lined pools of giant steel-and-concrete casks near the reactors.
Without a doubt, one of the greatest failings of the United States government has been to tackle a sane energy policy for its citizens. This is but one example and perhaps the greatest example is the US involvment in Iraq. No matter your postition on this particular matter, you must conclude as much. As for myself, I am amazed at the left who attacked our involvment in Iraq and green house emissions, yet fight nuclear power that is one of many solutions to both issues. For those on the left, the answers appear simply to pull out of Iraq, shut down nuclear power plants, stop driving SUV's, and buy a horse a buggy.....then again, the horse would emitt green house gases.
So perhaps the moral of the story is, before you go and stop programs and wars you don't agree with, perhaps you should first come up with better answers to these problems rather than simply demonizing the solutions others have put in place no matter how easy that may be. If it were up to me, I would make it a top priority to find an acceptable dumping ground for this waste and then pursue more reactors around the US. In addition, I would actively pursue natural gas which is abundant in the US and burns much cleaner than other fossil fuels. But then again, I'm a right winger crazy person, so what do I know? If I am guessing right, however, they will simply close down Yucca mountain and leave it to future administrations to deal with.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNevada has fought the project bitterly in court and in Congress. Their accusations are that the water table would become polluted if they proceeded. The Obama administration then jumped on the side of Nevada as did Harry Reid. As for the validity of such accusations, who is to say?
Why did Yucca Mountain need to be closed down?
Originally posted by whodeyAh, the good ole "I don't understand it so it must be bad"-irrationality.
Nevada has fought the project bitterly in court and in Congress. Their accusations are that the water table would become polluted if they proceeded. The Obama administration then jumped on the side of Nevada as did Harry Reid. As for the validity of such accusations, who is to say?
Originally posted by MelanerpesYet another reason to reduce the autonomy of states.
This issue is the mother of all NIMBY issues. The waste has to be put somewhere. But no state is going to be any more thrilled about nuclear waste in their backyard than Nevada has been.
Maybe we could deposit it on the moon...
Originally posted by whodeyCountries that are serious about reducing usage of fossil fuels quickly, have to consider expanding nuclear energy. If U.S. takes action inhibiting nuclear power they are going in the wrong direction, for themselves and everyone else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/science/earth/06yucca.html
President Obama recently closed the Yucca Mountain waste site that fulfills a campaign promise and wins the presidential political points in Nevada. However, it also raises new questions about what to do with readioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants.
"The decision could cost ...[text shortened]... will simply close down Yucca mountain and leave it to future administrations to deal with.
For a model in this regard, look no further than France. France is the leader in use of nuclear power. At present France has something like 59 nuclear power plants that produce almost 90% of her electrical power and building even more reactors. Consequently France has the least expensive electrical power in all Europe and nominal reliance on fossil fuels. In addition, France also exports a very large amount of electrical power. As far as nuclear waste goes, France is the innovator in this field as well and has developed closed fuel cycle to reprocess most of her spent fuel as well as for other countries.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think you understand. Nevada would have not have their way regarding the matter UNLESS the powers that be within the federal government sided with them. For example, if McCain had won he would have accelerated the nuclear program and it all would have wound up in Yucca Mountain. So if it had happened and the nuclear waste did indeed contaminate the water supply as Nevada says it would, the federal government would have been responsible for all the deaths/injuries surrounding the waste site.
Yet another reason to reduce the autonomy of states.
Originally posted by MacSwainAgreed. Apparently, however, the Obama administration and the lefties in the country are serious about reducing the use of fossil fuels. At least they prefer fossil fuels over nuclear waste. The odd thing is that you never hear the left saying that nuclear waste is destroying the planet, you only hear fossil fuels are destroying the planet. Go figure. In the meantime, I guess they will just tax fossil fuels as an answer to the problem. That should curb its use. LOL
Countries that are serious about reducing usage of fossil fuels quickly, have to consider expanding nuclear energy. If U.S. takes action inhibiting nuclear power they are going in the wrong direction, for themselves and everyone else.
For a model in this regard, look no further than France. France is the leader in use of nuclear power. At present Fran ...[text shortened]... developed closed fuel cycle to reprocess most of her spent fuel as well as for other countries.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI think France deposits it deep within the ocean.
This issue is the mother of all NIMBY issues. The waste has to be put somewhere. But no state is going to be any more thrilled about nuclear waste in their backyard than Nevada has been.
Maybe we could deposit it on the moon...